I think the homesteading idea is an excellent one and, may I suggest the "Old House Journal" be included on the advertising list — that's where you will find some serious candidates! Parameters would have to be established for an escrow/draw fund, to ensure rehab of the house. How wonderful a message it would be to hire a re-hab co-ordinator instead of a demo-one! I think I'll send a link to Mr. Wanamaker.
In all reality, because that where we should all be right now, the city needs to demo/deconstruct most of these houses. Many of these houses are beyond repair, have massive holes in roofs, burned out, moldy, asbestos filled, and not to mention are in the most struggling areas of the city. Quite honestly, rehabbing many of them would be a terrible allocation of money and finding a buyer...don't get me started.
But some concerns like what to do with the property after demo/deconstruction and how this will shape Buffalo's neighborhoods are important and necessitate the city to 'think outside the box' and develop a strong strategy before and after the demos have been completed.
Check out Richmond's Neighborhood's in Bloom Program http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/departments/communityDev/neighborhoods/
Ruby - Yes, there are large row houses in Baltimore; however the city is mostly small single family homes that are very similar to the homes in Bufalo. Many of the Baltimore homes that they have worked on are in neighborhoods that are far worse than our East Side is on it's worst day.
I would also contend that a single family, wood framed house is a lot easier to work on than a brick row house, especially if both are in similar states of decay and disrepair. You have flexibility with the single family house that you do not have with the row house, and it is cheaper to find parts and materials.
I talked to a contractor on the East Side who said his dream was to start a youth program fixing up houses whilst getting kdis off the street and teaching themconstruction/home rehab and giving them real marketable skills. I think a program like that would be amazing. There are several options for what would happen to the house next - sold at low cost to qualifying buyers, sold at market to fund the program, given to someone who contributed money/time/resources to the project. Maybe even a large employer/university could target a neighborhood and contribute money or match funds for houses for faculty and staff.
What about giving the houses to Habitat-esque programs?
Some of the houses have to be demolished. However, some that don't today may have to soon if the city doesn't get on top of things. A newly vacant house on the East Side will quickly lose it's copper wiring, windows, hardware, and anything else - skyrocketing the cost of making the house livable/desirable or a worthwhile investment.
jrogers - What's wrong with giving a house that would othewise be demolished to someone collecting public assitance so that they have a place to live?
It's simple supply and demand, these houses are empty because there are not people who want to live in them or the neighborhoods in which they reside. While it would be nice to have every neighborhood fully populated and vibrant, the city has excess housing for the current population. In theory giving away the homes is a great idea, but who is going to move into them and what are they going to do to make a living here? You need a job to own a home.
For those with fantasies of getting a city house cheaply to rehab, check the latest revison of properties up for sale at the City tax auction in October.
As of August 13, are 4,055 properties on the list.
SEE: http://www.city-buffalo.com/applications/ForeclosureInremListing/Inrem41.xls
Mrogers - Thanks for the info. The only thing that I had seen prior to this was the excel spreadsheet of foreclosures. This is good info.
Many people don't want to move into an older home because of the costs of rehabilitation... 100 million dollars is a TON of money to tear structure down and I ask people to think about what we are left with in the end? Fewer structure, less potential, more rats and vacant fields. Demolition cuts the heart out of neighborhoods much more than vacant buildings. It is a destruction of the built fabric taht people relate too making it much easier to just pack up and be the next person to move out leaving another empty building. We need to continue to build hope in neighborhood, hope that the city cares, and more than just cares but is willing to fight for your home, your street and your neighborhood. Policies and plans that talk of demolition is like saying, "sorry we lost the fight," to everyone who hasn't left yet.
I have done a little work with a grant and home rehab and I can tell you the costs to rehab an older city of buffalo home usually run from 30-80k depending on the condition obviously. While that sounds like a lot of money that can't be recouped it is still cheaper to rehab than demolish + rebuilding. You can't build a new structure for under 100k and probably a lot more for a 4 bedroom, three story structure like the ones we have.
My point is that we could spend $100 million to demolish 5,000 structure, or we could spend 100 million and rehabilitate 1,000+ structures and really change the downward spiral is several edge neighborhoods. If places like the larkin district, the west side, riverside, black rock, hamlin park, 1st ward had 1000 newly renovated structure in them their property values would explode enticing others to put money into their comes and not into a new home in Clarence. I do have the data on me right now but I could get it eventually but demolitions lower the property values of surrounding properties this plan means we are spending money to and getting nothing in return.
A couple of points.
- The homesteading idea is silly. These homes are in the worst areas of the city. Not only would you have to give the home and land away for free, you would also have to PAY people to live there.
- The second reason why homesteading is silly is most of these homes are under 50K. On a 3o year @ 6.28% and ZERO down, that is $310 a month. IF SOMEONE CAN NOT DO $310 a month, they sure as hell are not ready to be a homeowner.
- The third reason why homesteading is silly. The job of the government is not to give away home and land. Just imagine what trash would be attracted to Buffalo if the offer went out for Free Homes and Land in the Ghetto. Oh and a kicker is you will live in one of the best welfare states in the US. Sweet.
Now in regards to why these homes should come down. BUFFALO IS TOO BIG! Not only does Buffalo have more buildings and homes that it needs, they are also the wrong ones. The city of Buffalo has some of the smallest city lots for residential homes in the US. People want a 2 car driveway and to not see the kitchen next door when you are eating dinner. They want lots twice the width of what most city lots provide. Buffalo needs to take back several connecting blocks in the city. Remove the roads and create a land bank of open fields.
Just imagine that everything West of Filmore, East of Michigan, North of Broadway and South of the 33 and Walden was fields. As it stands right now, these blocks have homes built on 40% of the lots and most of these homes built are about to come down. I say desperate times call for desperate measures. Take back this ENTIRE section and land bank it. Use ED to remove anyone who actually wants to live in this area.
This section of town is just outside of downtown and the medical corridor. I would rather wait 10-15 years for this to build out and then have the city release these lots to the highest bidder.
In the meantime, this would ease burden on the Police, Fire and Streets department which would save the city money as well.
I say about 30% of the city needs to be land banked if the population stands still. My hope is that they land bank large tracks of land like I outlined above and not sections of a block here and there.
There continues to be confusion about "housing vacancies" Vs "vacant buildings. While the city talks of demolishing 5000 "buildings" over 5 years at a cost of $100 million, it is unclear how many "housing vacancies" are involved. Many buildings invole multiple housing units. For example, BMHA's long-vacant Kensington Heights Apartments contain 350 housing units in 7 buildings as I recall. That would be 50 housing units in on building, taken down at much higher cost "per building" than $20,000.
New Census estimates that 16,500 person have left Bflo btwn 2000 & 2006, could mean 6,600 new Bflo housing vacancies . . added to 22,854 housing vacancies counted in the 2000 Census.
If demolitions are subtracted & new builds added . . there could now possibly be 25,000 to 27,000 housing vacancies in Bflo.
Where can on find that demolition & newbuild data to help clarify that the average cost of $20,000 per demolished building included many multiple dwelling or apartment structures? And it is imperative that the city publish a list of which buildings are proposed for demolition based on which priorities so that the plan can be open and accountable.
Recent Bflo News reports indicate that the issue of demolition must be tied to the quality of inspections. See this July 16th Bflo News report:
Housing violation complaints soar; city can’t keep up
By Brian Meyer NEWS STAFF REPORTER Updated: 07/16/07 7:02 AM
Residents flooded City Hall with 4,153 complaints about housing code violations in the first five months of the year, and nearly one-third of the problems remain unresolved.
Mayor Byron W. Brown called the new figures “totally unacceptable” and told inspections officials he expects to see improvements.
“We’re going to hold the department accountable,” Brown said.
Commissioner Richard M. Tobe said the Economic Development, Permits and Inspections Services Department is grappling with an increase in housing complaints and added duties even though it remains understaffed.
The Buffalo News obtained data showing that housing violation complaints soared 44 percent in the first five months of 2007 compared with the same period a year ago. About 20 percent of the complaints logged last year are still unresolved, officials conceded.
Plans to hire new staffers should provide some relief. The new budget that took effect July 1 adds three new positions, but Tobe said even these new hires and a few new positions that were added last year leave the unit understaffed.
“We lost 45 people [since 2002] and work is increasing,” Tobe said.
During Friday’s CitiStat meeting, Brown ordered inspections officials to fill the vacant jobs as quickly as possible, warning that if there are delays they will face “a problem with me.”
Following the somewhat tense meeting, Brown said his remarks reflect his frustration that so many complaints about blighted homes are not being addressed fast enough.
“I don’t like to hear excuses. We are all short-staffed,” Brown said.
Decaying and vacant structures pose the most critical problem facing Buffalo, Finance Commissioner Janet Penksa said.
For the second time in three months, the city’s accountability panel criticized performance in the inspections unit. CitiStat members lamented in April that it was sometimes taking inspectors more than a month to address peeling paint, overgrown grass and other complaints.
“At some point, there needs to be a strategy,” Corporation Counsel Alisa A. Lukasiewicz said.
A game plan is already in place for improving operations, inspections officials insisted. In addition to more staff, the department is undergoing technology upgrades. Inspectors will be equipped with laptops and probably BlackBerries. Officials think the devices will speed processing and improve communication. A new computer tracking system will help employees prioritize their days.
First Deputy Mayor Steven M. Casey wants to see a list of outstanding housing complaints broken down by inspectors. He said it’s important to make sure “everyone is doing their job.”
CitiStat panelists also raised questions about possible demolition delays. They cited one initiative funded with federal money. Of the 32 demolition orders issued through the program, only one structure has been torn down in recent months, City Strategic Planning Director Timothy E. Wanamaker said.
Tobe said he needed to review the numbers to verify that they’re current.
Tobe was quick to note that there were 11 emergency demolitions performed in the first 12 days of July.
bmeyer@buffnews.com
... that "construction managment company" wouldn't be getting any of the contract money; would it? putting aside who is picking up the tab, can anyone tell me who will be receiving the money?
it's going to be incredibly wasteful to have city snowplows, postal workers, sanitation owrkers, etc. working on streets which only have a fraction of the houses remaining on them. i'm not suggesting that the remaining owners/tenants be depived of such services but has the City looked into "shrinking" the size of the city?
The city web site has a handful of available properties:
http://www.city-buffalo.com/Home/Leadership/City_Departments/Office_of_Strategic_Planning/RealEstate
There are 22 pages of properties listed alphabetically by street and averaging four pics and info p/page.
Also, this link will provide another link to vacant lots available.
To all of those opposing mass demolitions and offering some vague "why can't we just give the houses to people to fix up?" kind of alternative:
Read the comment trail and you will learn many answers you your "why?" questions. As Kernwatch points out, many vacant houses are already available for very cheap via the regularly held foreclosure auctions and by far most of these never receive any bids. As Nick explains, the rehab of such houses is a very big undertaking and likelihood of finding someone who wants to live on many of these streets, even in a nicely rehabbed house, is essentially non-existent.
Can you get the picture? The little-or-low-cost-purchase opportunity that al-alo and others call for already exists and in 99% of the cases there is zero demand for it. There are thousands and thousands of vacant dangerous houses that NOBODY wants to own, NOBODY wants to be a landlord of, and NOBODY wants to live in.
Now, of course "NOBODY" doesn't mean there are not a very few people here and there who are willing to try something like that, but again there are THOUSANDS of these houses creating ugly blight and serious fire dangers. Yes, "Habitat-eque" programs could save a few of these. There will always be plenty of houses left over for the very small number of people who do such things.
But meanwhile, a massive demolition program such as what the mayor announced is long overdue. Buffalo once had a population near 600,000 and is now well less than half that, and is continuing to drop and drop.
If you oppose this, you are opposing a program offering the only practical way of helping rid these neighborhoods of terribly dangerous firetraps that you yourself would never want to live near. What would you say to people currently living nearby these dangerous houses, or to firefighters who have to respond to arsons there? That we should leave them standing because of your unrealistic fantasies?
Quick question: Why aren't these houses easier to purchase and rehab. I have told friends who rehab buildings in Baltimore and DC (yes, they flip houses) about the low cost of entry into houses in Buffalo. Is there a central site for these properties, similar to what one might find on Realtor.com? Maybe the City could invest a couple hundred dollars for digital pictures and post them to a site with contact information to purchase these. We could maybe get in front of some of the properties that are on their way towards decay. If the city takes control of a property through foreclosure or other avenue, they should put that property up immediately for public review. I bet we would have a much smaller vacancy problem if people had access to this information in an easy to use format.
You can't give abandonded properties to people who have no money to rehabilitate them and pay for up keep. Rehabs are not cheap and with many of the abandoned properties you don't have anything of value to save in the first place. Nate: Thank you for the word on Elk Terminal but it is a completely different animal than rehabbing individual houses throughout the city. The Elk Terminal is a high income, gated community with a great product in a unique environment. I don't think the demand for a double on Box Street would generate the same demand. The process is simple housing filtering, supply versus demand. As there is more supply, better housing will become more affordable so the lowest quality will shift downward to the next socioeconomic group. Once the property reaches the lowest level it is abandonded as it no longer has a market therefore no value. It is at this point where the house should be demolished. There are plenty of programs in cities that do this through demolition and landbanking, see LISC and Philly's Neighborhood Transformation Inititative.
Progress in Buffalo = doing the same thing that we tried 20 years ago, with the same cast of characters, with the same promise to the people of buffalo, but expecting that it will work this time. The arrogance of Byron Brown is staggering, instead of looking at the mistakes of Griffin and Masiello and learning, he sees the previous mayor as the flaw in the plan. Somehow, somewhere, Brown became a turn-around agent in his own head, now he believes that he can pull this off just because he is Byron Brown.
The problem is that he is still not attacking the root cause, he is trying to make the numbers look good. I can imagine this discussion... "how do we improve our vacancy percentage across the city? anyone.?" ... sure Byron, we just reduce the number of vacant houses through demolition, while keeping the occupancy rate flat, it can't fail"...
What happens when we have a neighborhood with only 4 or 5 houses on the street? How long until the remaining home owners die or move to a more thriving environment. Empty houses give hope that vacant land diminishes.
It's somewhat ironic to think that if Comerford's Department had done a better job of enforcing the Building Code against neglectful owners when he was Commissioner in the 1980's we might not have so many houses that were in such bad shape.
On the whole this plan might be necessary and may be well managed, but if there isn't also a substantial focus of resources on inspections of buildings that aren't going to be demolished we're just going to allowing bad property owners to create another wave of demo-ready buildings.
sbrof and jroger are dead on. Note to Nick: a few years ago, it was the conventional wisdom that no one wanted to live in the shadow of the abandoned H-O Oats complex near public housing, certainly not people with means. The Elk Sreet Terminal project proved that the conventional wisdom was wrong. Demand can always be stimulated and manipulated, or we wouldn't have a bazillion dollar advertising industry in this country.
If it costs, say, $20K to demolish the typical Buffalo wood frame two-flat, why not give the $20K to a qualifying owner-occupant for rehabilitation? I'm sure we have bankers who know how to administer programs like this. It is a win-win--another house goes back on the tax rolls, more tradespeople find work, more streets stabilize.
Of course there will be houses with no takers. For them, Buffalo Reuse dismantles and salvages.
Sure it may improve the vacancy rate some, but then there are going to be more and more streets with only one or two houses left on them.
Typical government, can't think outside the box. Remember a couple years ago about that small town in Alaska that offered free property as long as yuo would build a house within a certain date? That worked, and tons of people moved there. Why couldn't we do something like that with these houses? Because, everything Buffalo does is by the book, and by that book and that book...
If multiple companies came to Buffalo bringing 30,000+ jobs, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is, the opposite has been happening. To attract future companies, residents, entrepreneurs, etc. You can't have rat infested, drug infested, eyesores for them to see - end of story. These houses have been vacant for 15+ years, enough is enough. The minute you give tax payer money to help a homesteader, you'll have 1000 more people complaining why didn't I get money. Either you tear them down, or you give a tax rebate to those who already have invested in the city and provide funding to rehab all the houses - you can't cherry pick houses to fund with tax dollars. Any idea how much the latter plan would cost? But none of this matters if there aren't jobs.
lets just give the freaken things to anybody who wants one!
put an ad in stars and stripes, the SF chronicle, this old house magazine. first come first serve. id bet the cost for all of that would be less than one or two demos.
i mean what the hell!
This plan is insane. $100 million tax payer dollars to demolish the houses? Why not fix them up and arrange a lottery to qualified owners? (of course many are too far gone I realize) But what a pathetic lack of creative thinking!
If deconstruction is truly a major component for this program, then assess each building carefully, deconstruct those that are in dire need of demolition and move the saved product from them to neighboring structures that can be saved using the materials pulled from the demos. In this manner rehabilitation costs for the structures worth saving can be reduced somewhat. I know of one house that was demo'd with a gorgeous mantel still in it. Other product can include some wall studs, kitchen cabinets, and much more. It would be easier to assess the needs of the remaining structures, go into thise for deconstruction and shop. The saved materials would be less of a cost factor due to reduction in transport to resale stores.
Also, just a quick question. Isn't this plan a 50% reduction of the original 10,000 homes to be demo'd in 10 years?
I agree with the comment above about offering these properties to homesteaders. We need population influx, and what better way to get it than to try to attract ambitious immigrants from around the world (and within the U.S.) looking for "the American dream." Offer the house and a portion of the money that would be used for demo to a qualified homesteader with the condition that the property is renovated and lived in by the homesteader for at least say 5-10 years. There would need to be some strict conditions for "qualification" so you get good owner-occupants. This group would ideally consist of individuals that would contribute to the economy by starting businesses or filling roles not being served by our existing workforce. Controls would need to be in place to prevent these properties from going to those just looking for a free place to live while collecting public assistance. Hard working immigrants built Buffalo the first time; maybe they can help rebuild it with this as a leg up. The west was settled by offering 50 acres and a mule...
Marilyn,
You always make me laugh. SpOt on re: numbers...
Any plan lacking an effective strategy to deal with the growing number of vacant properties, especially surrounding brand new schools, is doomed. Larger problem of course is that there's no reliable data set - no call for one either, which in itself is totally mind boggling - indicating just how many dead houses exist in the City.
5x5...reminds me of BINGO. Everyone on the edge of their seat, hoping. Hope is not a plan!
Oh...and homesteading. Where's that program? Like this is rocket science...sad.
As someone moving to Buffalo. Why not use the 100 million to encourage businesses to move to Buffalo or for people to start them. Think of it this way. 1000 small business each get $100,000 repayment grant. Each business employs minimum of say 5 people to receive the money. That is 5,000 new jobs created. That is potential for 5,000 new people to move to Buffalo, 5,000 people needing housing, and maybe give those 5,000 people houses and low interest rehab loans to rehab 5,000 houses. Also imagine if each person brings a spouse and a child on average that is 15,000 people added to Buffalo. So much for population decline.
Also don't forget as the money is paid back it could keep the program going forever perhaps and have an additional say 1,000 new jobs created every year.
Just an idea.
The city should not be allowed to engage in any new devleopment until they have a WORKING plan to maintain what they have already. Housing codes are not enforced and landlords are allowed to milk properties until they are completely valueless. Landlord licensing now!
AtwaterLouse - I'm opposed to the city demolishing structures that they have not tried to sell for $1. The problem with the foreclosure sale is that the city does not list all city-owned properties. The city needs to at least try to sell or give away the properties first. Personally I've purchsed over 50 properties mainly in the city, some that were slated to be demolished. Unfortunately I have never directly purchased from the city and feel that their system is flawed. If FAIR MARKET VALUE is $1, less than $1, or a negative value, by all means we should give an interested party a shot at it.
For others reading this - there is a September 22, 2007 9 AM sale of city-owned properties. Here's the link:
http://www.auctionsinternational.com/liveauction07-BuffaloCity.htm
This list is a good start and long overdue.
The City can't give the houses away - it's required by law to sell the for market value. Even though some of these houses of negative value - I don't know if its possible to give them away. Homesteading is a great option.
I fell in love with a house on the property list but just couldn't afford to do the work needed AND pay for the house. Other people were interested and so we had to back out because we couldn't win a bidding war. Lo and behold, it doesn't look like anyone bought the house.
That is a good Al-Alo.....I get This Old House Magazine and if they did that I bet people from all over would come to take the piece of the properties.
Dan, Id hate to live in a city with your pessimism disguised as pragmatism! The truth has more to do with the city's lack of investment and urban planning.
The city never rebuilt its urban industrial parks The city never remedied its urban brownfields The city never rebuilt its urban office parks The city never used its various municipal, county, state and federal resources for infill residential development The city never used its money to repave roads, rebuild sewars, water mains, curbs, sidewalks, replant trees, etc The city never used the full power of its building inspectors The city never enforced, increased its fines and penalties, or adjusted its property laws Except for the latest round of parking tickets the city doesnt bother with quality of life crimes
Yes, Buffalo lost over 50% of its population but much of it was self inflicted from an apothetic and incompetent leadership...than some pragmatic depreciation of property. Yes property goes through cycles of devaluation but there are many examples of re-use that defy your pragmatism because they were re-developed and re-invested.
Wouldn't we be better off if there was an equally big pot o' money to rehabilitate houses, advertise them nationally, as those before me suggested, and attract new owners? Demolition isn't the only answer to vacant houses any more than amputation is the only answer to broken bones.
The city is dead and any new development plan makes people say "see, we're booming"...LMFAO
Sal,
To counter your idea, there has to be some point at which the city can say we have the right to take down this house without it ever going on the market. This is because any house under 5k costs the city and it's residents more to maintain the streets, fire and police protection then it is worth.
Same thing to you rickeyrick. At some point and I think it has passed, the city has the right to use eminent domain to claim land. I do not care if it is to clear land only to make a grassy field or to make room for development. If there was a case of 1 person holding out on a block, I would counter that they should pay 100% of the cost to maintain that block for streets, sewer, fire and police.
Thousands of decomposing structures in Buffalo and you people still applaud ANY plan for development.
Much of the Eastside is practically worthless....so I say....simply make it a property tax free district
Bown sucks...though not as much as Masiello or someof the previous mayors
Well the atleast Brown is more intelligent and on top of city agencies than Masiello....just dont know how such a stupid stupid stupid person such as Masiello got that position.....
Still Id like to know how much residential, commercial and industrial space was demolished under each mayor. This proposal may just push Mayor Brown to the position as most destructive mayor in Buffalo history.
This city needs a report card....and I just dont think we are getting the metrics that truly describe our cities values and performance.
even if a homesteading program had a minimal impact of adding only a few home owners, what is lost? it would not cost much, all is needed is a little effort. id bet if you were living next to one of these properties, you would be thankful for any attempt to get a family next to you over a vacant lot.
if no one takes us up on a property, we demolish/deconstruct it. if we only get 5 out of a 100, it is some progress! what is the problem with TRYING to get somebody to rehab it? its that typical naysayer attitude - itll never work so dont bother.
for that matter, id even rather that the forclosed homes be given away to potential homeowners rather than sold to out of town landlords (or in town for that matter).
I like the idea that we give the houses away...atleast the city could collect on the taxes then instead of sitting and rotting. And from the sounds of it, these houses couldn't get much worse, so ANYTHING would be an improvement. We could advertise nationally "Buffalo, giving away houses since 2007!"
Great MORE EMPTY SPACES throughout the city. This just proves what a dying city Buffalo really is. 5,000 less homes means more than 5,000 LESS Residences left.
good point seattletobuffalo, if only the anti-development'ers thought like that...dont forget: 5000 people with 5000 sposes have 5000 kids, who in turn, (if its 50/50) can produce 2500 more couples which make 2500 more kids, so in 30 years time we could have 7500 people off this...just an idea
It wouldn't happen. People who live at the ONLY house on the entire block would fight, protest on what a Landmark the home is and blah, blah, blah. And then you have the groups who are and want to fill the empty space with big gardens. Buffalo is a sad place, a once vibrant city, now a dying little town filled with people in thier own little world of ways which may seem strange to the outside world.
All of your complaints can be answered by removing or reducing the following 3 groups: 1. WASP (If you dont know what this is ask your dad) still holding on to power and choking the city 2. Do Nothing Politicians, and we've got more than our fair share of them 3. Unoins and Anti-Development Liberals
That is all
When are groups that are SUPPPOST to keep neighborhoods clean, actually come clean and turn in Slum Lords, Report Property that is becoming too dirty, falling apart and so on. One perfect example...BUFFALO PLACE! They are suppost to keep Downtown Clean, yet allow most of the area to look like a Ghetto, let businesses and empty buildings to have broken windows for months (or for ever), blank windows in a PEDESTRIAN Mall, allow a growth of offices, parole, and other non-profits to locate on the first floors of the remaining first floor spaces instead of PROMOTING RETAIL and bring back LIFE to the area instead of more creepy people (the only few you actually see walking around downtown). So, um, what does Buffalo Place do again?
When I lived in your city, I never felt safe walking a few blocks west beyond Elmwood Ave. or east of Main Street. Those areas seemed to have been the most abandoned, trashed up, along with VACANT lots. Which gives the vibe of "not safe to walk". Yet, your site promotes Buffalo Rising?.....Rising from what?
you even have empty spaces in the heart of downtown, and along a pedestrian mall, LMAO that seem to have no sign of life EVER.
There is a group that will work city wide that focuses on youth retention and remediation - Urban Community Corporation - here's a link to their video - watch out - it's heart wrenching:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=5789787
They've already worked on both the east and west sides
Ron's point is good too, that for some streets whose vacancy rate is very high it would not make long-term sense to sell houses to new buyers even if they exist. Doubtful that streets which are that far gone are likely the locations of houses Sal was talking about, but anyhow at some point the city should consider buying out the few remaining people and helping them move so that the whole street can be land-banked (making long term savings in sewer, police, etc. as Ron mentioned).
100 Million divided by 5,000 = $20,000.
Does it really cost $20,000 to demolish a west or east side double?
$20,000 does not go far when rehabbing one of these structures.
This is what happens when you live in a state like New York where it costs the government two dollars just to spend ONE!
I'm still reeling over ARTSPACE, those spaces cost tax payers over 200,000 dollars each....for artists, who are supposed to be creative!?!? Do you know how far that money would have gone if spent more creatively, and in a manner to encourage reuse?
Chief Psychic - It could be because Baltimore is loaded with small brick row houses that are much chepear and easier to rehabilitate than the larger detached frame houses in East Buffalo.
Sal - I support everything you wrote in that comment about how the city should publicize and make available for $1 sale all buildings slated for demolition (except those presenting immediate severe danger), but we'll have to agree to disagree about the relative priority of that aspect.
The number of vacant houses in Buffalo, especially the East Side, enormously exceeds the realistic number of serious qualified people interested in obtaining ownership, rehabbing, and finding responsible tenants. There just aren't anywhere near enough residents of Buffalo to fill all the houses. As we all know, there's many thousands of vacant dangerous firetrap eyesore houses - 10,000 by many estimates - and whatever the number, there's no doubt it continues to grow while root causes of Buffalo's population decline remain firmly in place with no end in sight.
The city's plan is to demolish 5000 over 5 years (and I doubt they'll be able to do 1000/year as they hope, but good to try) which clearly will still leave many vacant houses still standing. So if there's a particular vacant house you want to obtain, just by math there's roughly a 90% chance it will be still standing for the next year or so (9000/10,000), and so you'll have time to work through the bureaucracy to try obtaining it. Again, I totally agree the city should make that much less difficult for you, and it's inexcusable that they don't. A big improvement in those aspects perhaps is something Savage or Rivera will push for, whoever wins that council race.
But meanwhile the probability of the demolition plan taking a house you want is not all that high over the next few years. Even after five years, 5000 of the current 10,000 vacant houses will still be there for you to choose from. And unfortunately many hundreds more houses will be abandoned during that time so those will also be available to you.
If demolishing 1000 houses/year results in taking a handful that could've been saved, that will be unfortunate but not a tragedy. The supply of vacant houses still available to investors/saviors will still greatly exceed the realistic number of new rehabbers/landlords and tenants.
From perspective of people still living on these blocks and having to deal with dangers, ugliness, and everything else that these houses cause... and from perspective of firefighters such as Mark Reed having to deal with fighting arsons to help protect occupied houses nearby... I just don't think the city's inefficiencies and bureaucratic idiocy in selling vacant houses is a good enough reason to oppose the demolition plan.
Marilyn, I just went to the site you listed and downloaded the residential properties. There are some GEMS in there and several, on "hot" west side streets. Thanks for the tip that there IS such a resource. Now, we just need the city to ADVERTISE it . Do you know of any initiative that's been taken in that vein? Our "leaders" can't really expect people to dig into the website for that information on a "lark". Seems to me, there has to be some PR created with a link to PULL any interested parties. Al-alo had a great idea and the cost of a little PR and some well-planned "rules" needn't cost a fortune (or require a study and several consultants!)
I must be exhausted, my typos are awful! Either that or it's this outrageously awkward keyboard at work...
Hasn't the City's policy always been to demolish 1,000 homes per year? This is a just a repackaging and if it's anything like the most recent RFP, it's all going to the East side.
Quick note:
I live in Boston. A friend often sends me links to this website.
I just want to say, I admire that you all take the time to come here to discuss issues of importance to your town. It shows that there are still people who care about their cities (or, at the very least, are willing to TALK about them, a lot, even if they don't do much else). I'm serious, it's encouraging.
I hope you all understand and respect others' points of view.
If boards such as this encourage even one person to get out and get involved in urban renewal and the rebirth of cities, then it's worth it, right?
Agree with a lot of the above and add this to the mix. If you did some sort of national outreach, perhaps focused on renters, and offered them the house for free then the impact of moving here without a job already lined up would be lessened if they didn't have rent or a mortgage to worry about. Allow them to use the $20K for rehab if they live in the house for 10 years. That would almost be the point where property tax payments would be a break-even on the investment, not including other tangible and intangible contributions a warm body can make as opposed to an empty field.
two fold:
1)Find key properties/neighborhoods to perserve/rehabilitate. I always seen the West Side and east side areas like Lovejoy that are still intact prime for preservation and the mostly vacant east side prime for some well thought out new build. Unfotunately we just plob suburban crap in random locations. Not everyone wants a 100yr old house with 10x8 bedrooms and no driveway. The creativity and possibilites in a new built urban environment are endless. Form them around schools/churches/anchor structures and I think we would have a winner. Close as possible to the core of downtown though to get a critical mass going to further future development.
2) Find large areas to demo and let remain empty until a change finds them valuable again and thus ripe for ground up deevelopment. There is not enough population to sustain it all. We must downsize and strengthen the city instead of trying to keep every square inch of it going. Many of these structures are not notible and far gone. Save the noteable ones, clear out the rest.
> (Nick) The process is simple housing filtering, supply versus demand. As there is more supply, better housing will become more affordable so the lowest quality will shift downward to the next socioeconomic group. Once the property reaches the lowest level it is abandonded as it no longer has a market therefore no value. It is at this point where the house should be demolished.
Finally, someone who has read some Anthony Downs ... or one of my old posts. :) Five stars.
I want to add that I agree that they should rehab as well, esp. next to schools.
Dan: And to think learning urban economic analysis has become valuable in my life!
Soon, we can all say "Good bye" to the the East Side of Buffalo....or good ridence?
Report this